2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

I'll repeat something I've said many times: I expect Romney will have lots of wiggle-room in a general because a) voters in the middle who he needs will cut him slack for appeasing a base they consider crazy, b) most of the GOP base will reluctantly vote for him anyway, and c) by then (if not already), Romney will be long past the point where outrage over him changing his mind on something or contradicting himself will barely even register.

yes this is all true and why i think romney will win 47 -- 48 states and by a popular margin of 70% -- 30% it's all over a new conservative era is about to dawn

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/romney-robot1.jpg

by a popular margin of 70% -- 30%

hahaha waht

you think 80% -- 20%?

okay okay you've convinced me.

If Republicans dislike Romney enough, they have a chance to do away with him in the next two or three months--and when Gingrich was surging, I thought that's what they were indeed finally going to do. But if they nominate him, then I assume that means the majority of them, enthusiastically or otherwise, have decided they can abide by him as president.

abide by /= vote for

Do you really believe those numbers, Daniel? If I were a wagering kind of guy, I would wager a large amount on the proposition that no candidate will exceed 55% of the vote (I'm tempted to make it 53) or 350 electoral votes.

You're dividing the base into those who will reluctantly vote for Romney and those who'll need to be cajoled and driven to the polls. Maybe--I just think of it as one homogeneous base, and that most of them will vote for the Republican nominee.

One thing I do know: if Romney becomes president, I'm going to start hanging around NRO and have fun enjoying all the right-wing Morbiuses mercilessly pummeling Romney day in and day out in the comments section.

As one who (I think) shares Daniel's absurdist sense of humour, I think he's just having fun there.

personally I'm betting on the 80% - 20% Ron Paul landslide

I was kidding. I do think Romney will win, tho.

Of interest to wild gossipy political horserace fiends:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-maintains-his-lead.html

No uptick or backlash backlash for Newt. "But Paul's candidacy looks like it's going to attract an unusual number of younger voters to the caucus this year, and with those under 45 he has a 35-11 advantage on Romney." Paul's anti-war stand notwithstanding, I don't totally get this--wouldn't younger voters be the ones most bothered by the newsletters?

they like that he's the realest poster candidate that this board election has ever seen

The newsletter thing just came up and maybe they therefore accept Paul's ridiculous defense on the subject

Once you're sufficiently starry-eyed about somebody, I guess you're willing to overlook anything. (Oh wait, that's my guy.)

Yeah. For instance, I still think Rick Perry is dreamy.

I just can't quit you, Rick Perry.

I feel somewhat the same about Buddy Roemer.

http://images.politico.com/global/news/110304_buddy_roemer_605_ap.jpg

maybe we need a separate thread for 'who are your GOP friends/family/acquaintances gonna vote for'

but the only dude my birther pal (who lives in san francisco!) mentioned a while ago was perry, with regret that he'd shit the bed. never any mention of mitt. curious what he thinks of newt, but i am still friends with him because this only comes up when we're hammered.

at any rate he's certain that any GOP candidate couldn't possibly "do more harm to america" than obama. i've no idea what that means and it would be too depressing to ask.

I can't even ask that question, without getting into a conversation that will make me cringe.

Yesterdays comment: "Obama is really stupid, as in not bright at all. He just let all those terrorists out of Guantanamo, and they can now plot against us. He is a stupid man."

(Say this in your best Admiral Stockdale voice): Gridlock!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/polling-gridlock-in-iowa-could-produce-last-minute-momentum/#

So far all the talk that Romney's more or less past his problems--Gingrich is fading fast, it's just him and Paul now, and Paul can't survive much scrutiny--he still hasn't really solved that 20-25% problem, has he? I think it will go away eventually. I just continue to be surprised that it's so persistent.

According to fivethirtyeight, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry are all "projected to receive between 11 and 14 percent of the vote in Iowa". Gobsmacking! The idea that Bachmann, Santorum and Perry are all above 10% just floors me.

Also, in other news from that link, Gingrich still holds commanding polling leads in SC and FL, which are far more important than Iowa in terms of the eventual nomination.

btw, if I were Perry, I'd retire to N********d and use my leftover campaign cash to start the Mary Kay franchise to end all Mary Kay franchises.

- "b) most of the GOP base will reluctantly vote for him anyway"

Vote for him, yes. Prolly 85% of conservatives are sufficiently anti-Obama that they will VOTE for the Republican nominee no matter who he/she/it is. (The other 10% have crankish reasons why they won't accept this or that apostate.)

But will that 85% donate? Organize? Volunteer? Work the phones? Do get-out-the-vote stuff? My guess is that no, they mostly will not.

In 2008, conservatives were disappointed with McCain as the nominee. They held their noses and voted for him, but they weren't happy. Of course some were happy about Palin, and most knew that they definitely didn't want Obama, but that didn't extend to happiness about McCain. And he lost badly.

So now we see two possibilities: one, the mainstream GOP contrives to nominate Romney. Conservatives will vote for him, but not organize and volunteer for him. And their antipathy toward the mainstream and GOP leadership can only increase; they will (understandably) continue to feel that when they support the milquetoast mainstream, they just get hosed.

Possibility two: on the off-chance that a not-Romney is nominated, it will be someone acceptable to that wacky fringe. Which means unacceptable to the middle, and the dynamic is reversed: then it's the middle who will hold their noses and vote, but not bust their butts to pull (say) Gingrich across the finish line.

As for the Not-Romneys, the Gingrich surge is the Cain surge is the Perry surge is the Bachmann surge. It's all the same people casting about for an acceptable not-Romney. Again, 85% of that crowd will coalesce around the eventual nominee - as far as voting is concerned.

So you have a lose-lose situation for the GOP, and that recipe continues to look delicious for Democrats.

(I think I meant the other 15% - math r not me)

Puffin, in spite of what I believe to be your essentially correct analysis of the republican side of the pending prez election, I think it will still be a very close race, because enthusiasm for Obama among liberals is rather tepid also, and the electoral college slants the prez race heavily toward small-population states, which tend to be more rural and republican. We're still gioing to see this race pivot on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, with a few small states like NH tossed in for spice, if it gets razor thin.

imo the states that're gonna matter most in '12 are gonna be the historically red ones that Obama "flipped" by inspiring the indifferent, who won't be as inspired this time

nah that's generally not how it works. those were the cherry on top but it's very unlikely that obama would win them if a race where he doesn't win ohio and pennsylvania - and if he wins ohio he's probably already won. unless dynamics have seriously shifted over the last 4 years.

In 2008, conservatives were disappointed with McCain as the nominee. They held their noses and voted for him, but they weren't happy. Of course some were happy about Palin, and most knew that they definitely didn't want Obama, but that didn't extend to happiness about McCain. And he lost badly.

2012 isn't 2008; romney isn't mccain.

xp to myself

that said he won virginia w/ a bigger margin than ohio or florida and that might be 'safer' than either of those at this point. dunno, I'm not optimistic about florida.

obama's campaign manager sounds confident. about florida, he says the best way to view florida is not to have to win it (then if you do, "great!"). we'll see.

polls say romney/rubio beats obama/biden in florida. but that advantage evaporates if it's obama/HRC.

chances of obama/hrc ticket are almost nil, unless biden fronts an ultra-credible excuse for not rejoining the ticket - like liver cancer, for example.

I dunno, if it polls well and they're struggling, why not? it's a gimmick but what isn't?

heard someone say it's a strategy under consideration, depending on how things are unfolding next year.

the easy move would be for HRC and biden to trade jobs. no loss of respect/credibility there.

"someone" being richard nixon, who spoke to me in a dream.

i think joe biden would make a pretty bad secretary of state

yes

appalling actually

You can get away with his interjections when your office is the constitutionally useless vice presidency, not as SOS.

basically if the gop has an embarrassing primary season, romney wins but struggles and comes out looking pretty weak - why take any risk? even if this polls well, it'd be a risk on some level.

but if romney has (more or less) a clean victory / a GOP mandate, comes out w/ a lot of momentum, obama's a few points behind...why not pull the type of stunt that the media totally eats up? clinton makes it 'obama 2.0' and gives the campaign a fresh media narrative. gives a lot of people a reason to start paying attention again. would kill in the debates and could go full force attack dog.

(i really don't like this kind of fantasy-team speculation but) that kind of personnel move look like a huge admission of weakness, esp if there is no immediate health- or scandal-related reason to get rid of biden. plus i wonder if obama and hrc still personally don't like each other at all. if it is true that obama is not close to many people and trusts very few it seems unlikely that a relationship like that would be sacrificed.

clinton makes it 'obama 2.0' and gives the campaign a fresh media narrative.

ok now you sound like gabbneb

I remember in '08, with a month or two to go--around the time McCain had pulled even--Limbaugh or Hannity or someone started speculating furiously that plans were underway for Biden to intentionally self-destruct so they'd have an excuse to put Hillary in. In the context of Biden's gift for unintentional gaffes, it was fun trying to imagine how spectacular an intentional one would be.

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-era-of-the-ron-paul-newsletters-isnt-even-past/

What I find interesting is how much the discussion is focused on the past-ness of these newsletters. The newsletters stopped with their racist, bigoted and survivalist themes by the mid-1990s, and people are now debating how much they should reflect on both Ron Paul and libertarianism. Whatever the results of that debate, they represent an era now over – Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez argued that “the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon.” But if you strip away the ugliness and just focus on the underlying political strategy and the coalition it hoped to bring into existence, the newsletters have not only survived but they form the core of the Tea Party movement.

What Ron Paul actually thinks of these newsletters is a bit of a mysterious, as he often dodges hard questions about them. It is clear that Ron Paul has, to use Dara Lind’s phrase, a “Libertarianism for White Dudes” problem. The ability to discriminate against a minority at one’s lunch counter is the core of freedom, but a woman’s ability to have some autonomy over what is going on in her uterus is incidental to liberty (Ron Paul has declared Right-to-Life is “the most important issue of our age”).

But I want to abstract away from both Ron Paul and the ugly tone and language in the newsletters. What was their political strategy? As Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez dug up, there was a very clear path. According to Rothbard in 1992, they could gather disaffected working and middle class people by exposing an ”unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”

Take white middle-class people and explain to them how the safety net is ok for them because they are part of the virtuous hardworking backbone of the country, but it’s a dangerous creation because people elite liberals will use it to create a mass, dangerous Other that don’t deserve to be part of it.

we don't have an NRO thread so i'll just put this here

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286726/front-page-voyeurism-heather-mac-donald

i mean holy shit

[Approved commenter] Jenna
: 12/28/11 15:30

If American society has reached the point that a newspaper article about bad sex between two teenagers with autism is considered a human interest story and we feel compelled to defend the insensitive and disgusting journalist who wrote it, it doesn't matter how bad the politicians in Washington are because we have far more serious problems.

I'm very fond of Jenna -- she comments often and just as wittily.

The “Aspergians have sex” story

clinton makes it 'obama 2.0' and gives the campaign a fresh media narrative.

ok now you sound like gabbneb

ehh I'm not arguing it would change anything about obama, I'm arguing the media eats gimmicky shit up

I was Gabbnebbed last night on a different thread. It's a ferocious accusation.

it's really just the flipside of being morbzed